If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   "Five repercussions of a military strike in Syria." Only five?   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 178
    More: Obvious, U.S., U.S. military, ramifications, Anthony Cordesman, Heads of state of Syria, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

5556 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-29 08:08:40 AM  
I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.
 
2013-08-29 08:10:42 AM  

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


chemical weapons actually being used. At least, that's what I assume. Maybe we're trying to make up for not helping the Kurds getting gassed back in the 90s?
 
2013-08-29 08:15:44 AM  

somedude210: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

chemical weapons actually being used. At least, that's what I assume. Maybe we're trying to make up for not helping the Kurds getting gassed back in the 90s?


Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?
 
2013-08-29 08:17:53 AM  

Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?


moral authority?
 
2013-08-29 08:22:39 AM  

Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?


Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.
 
2013-08-29 08:22:41 AM  
I'd like to see clear unrefutable evidence that Assad was responsible. Not because I doubt the official evidence, but because I can't put up with 10 years of conspiracy theorists and false flag claims. It does my head in. I see no reason to rush this, we've waited 3 years while they shot each other, we can wait another few weeks to prove, unequivocally, that they've started killing each other slightly differently.
 
2013-08-29 08:29:05 AM  
#6 - 1% rise in ignorant Westerners actually able to find Syria on a f*cking map.
 
2013-08-29 08:34:24 AM  

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


In light of recent information, it is not 'a slam dunk' that Assad is responsible in the first place.  But Odumbo said it was 'unequivicable evidence'. Loud noises signifying nothing....
 
2013-08-29 08:34:33 AM  

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.
 
2013-08-29 08:38:01 AM  

somedude210: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

moral authority?


The British Legal letters state 'war crimes', 'crimes against humanity' and genocide.
 
2013-08-29 08:40:41 AM  

doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.


to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether
 
2013-08-29 08:43:44 AM  

Slaxl: I'd like to see clear unrefutable evidence that Assad was responsible. Not because I doubt the official evidence, but because I can't put up with 10 years of conspiracy theorists and false flag claims. It does my head in. I see no reason to rush this, we've waited 3 years while they shot each other, we can wait another few weeks to prove, unequivocally, that they've started killing each other slightly differently.


While I agree I want more evidence that Assad actually did order the use of chemical weapons, even "clear unrefutable evidence" wouldn't stop the "false flag" people.  I mean, how many times have the claims of 9/11 "truthers" been dismantled and they still keep it up?
 
2013-08-29 08:48:04 AM  

jake_lex: Slaxl: I'd like to see clear unrefutable evidence that Assad was responsible. Not because I doubt the official evidence, but because I can't put up with 10 years of conspiracy theorists and false flag claims. It does my head in. I see no reason to rush this, we've waited 3 years while they shot each other, we can wait another few weeks to prove, unequivocally, that they've started killing each other slightly differently.

While I agree I want more evidence that Assad actually did order the use of chemical weapons, even "clear unrefutable evidence" wouldn't stop the "false flag" people.  I mean, how many times have the claims of 9/11 "truthers" been dismantled and they still keep it up?


How about both sides used them? But Kerry and Obama should STFU and wait for the UN report instead of the US acting unilaterally.
 
2013-08-29 08:49:58 AM  

somedude210: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

moral authority?


Get rid of gitmo and the TSA and then we can discuss regaining our moral authority. In this case it just seems like we drop bombs on the middle east because we forgot how to do anything else.
 
2013-08-29 08:51:15 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: somedude210: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

moral authority?

The British Legal letters state 'war crimes', 'crimes against humanity' and genocide.


Yeah but we let bush and Cheny get away with bombing the middle east on little or no evidence.
 
2013-08-29 08:52:46 AM  

somedude210: doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether


All the more reason...
 
2013-08-29 08:55:07 AM  

doyner: somedude210: doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether

All the more reason...


I'm just getting tired of being told I should STFU and just go along with our middle east bombing runs without asking questions.
 
2013-08-29 09:01:54 AM  

Weaver95: doyner: somedude210: doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether

All the more reason...

I'm just getting tired of being told I should STFU and just go along with our middle east bombing runs without asking questions.


You're not hearing that from me.  I think it's just become a reflexive impulse of our culture.
 
2013-08-29 09:03:15 AM  

kronicfeld: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.


As citizens of the advanced western democracies, we face an important question - how do we profit off this war? Raytheon, GenDyn and all the usual suspects are only up slightly in their stock price. What's a boy to do?

My tip: Kratos

http://www.kratosdefense.com/

Contact your broker today. Fees may apply. Void where prohibited where law, just like the Constitution.
 
2013-08-29 09:05:25 AM  

doyner: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.


Didn't we? I distinctly remember marches and rallies millions of people big filling up cites.

I'm amazed that the level of dissent we're hearing is nothing in comparison to what we heard 10 years ago.
 
2013-08-29 09:05:57 AM  

somedude210: An entirely different situation altogether


An entirely situation.  But that's not important right now.
 
2013-08-29 09:06:29 AM  

Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?


It only concerns us when the rest of the world has a problem they don't want to deal with and profiteers in the US see an opportunity to recycle their store of munitions for a 9-figure sum.  The US has become the neanderthal muscle guy that is unwelcome at dinner parties but is the first person that gets called when there's a bump in the night. When we want something done though it's the US being imperialist.

Got it?
 
2013-08-29 09:08:23 AM  
Here we go. Bush and farking Cheney with their weapons of mass destruction bullshiat and readying us to bomb a middle eastern country. Those farkers!
 
2013-08-29 09:08:36 AM  

doyner: Weaver95: doyner: somedude210: doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether

All the more reason...

I'm just getting tired of being told I should STFU and just go along with our middle east bombing runs without asking questions.

You're not hearing that from me.  I think it's just become a reflexive impulse of our culture.


Im really hoping its not becoming a cultural imperative. I'd actually prefer a military/industrial complex conspiracy at that point. Blood for the blood god is fine when playing warhammer 40k but as a basis for our foreign policy decisions it kinda sucks.
 
2013-08-29 09:09:48 AM  

Weaver95: doyner: somedude210: doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether

All the more reason...

I'm just getting tired of being told I should STFU and just go along with our middle east bombing runs without asking questions.


I think it's fair to ask what the US's interest is in Syria. Clearly someone is contravening the accords on chemical weapons, which is something to take seriously and warrants action of some kind. Also, it's clear that the US doesn't want another failed state in the region, sandwiched between our allies Turkey and Israel, which could lead to spillover fighting and devolution into a regional conflict. Third, the US has made previous commitments to fostering democratic regimes and, if the US does nothing, it may be seen as a betrayal by the populace.

All that being said: active military intervention anywhere is a complicated and risky matter. I think the furthest we could go is to provide political, logistical, and technical support to one of our NATO allies (namely France, possibly the UK) to execute the action.

No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed.
 
2013-08-29 09:10:26 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-29 09:11:26 AM  
Its like if the nazis were fighting the KKK, you wait till they off each other then take out the remaining

/worse attriocities are going on arround the world and yet we have done nothing, Best Korea for decades is a good example
 
2013-08-29 09:11:38 AM  

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


Terrible table manners.

fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-08-29 09:12:48 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed


Which is exactly why we should stay out of it.  Let the Russians or Turks, hell ANYONE in Europe step in if this is such an imperative.
 
2013-08-29 09:12:57 AM  
Look....the Middle-East/Persia is going to become an issue in the future anyway. Let's just get it over with. But this time have the military run the war and not the politicians. Stop with the limited bombing campaigns and treat it how we treated Germany and Japan in WWII.
 
2013-08-29 09:13:55 AM  

neversubmit: Terrible table manners.


Everytime I see a picture of a prominent American in a familiar pose with some individual we later declare to be a menace, I'm reminded of those narratives of inner-city life when one kid kills a "lifelong friend" over an X-Box  or a pair of sneakers.
 
2013-08-29 09:14:04 AM  

AngryDragon: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed

Which is exactly why we should stay out of it.  Let the Russians or Turks, hell ANYONE in Europe step in if this is such an imperative.


Then we get blamed for not getting involved.
 
2013-08-29 09:14:11 AM  

somedude210: doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether


An entirely different situation.
 
2013-08-29 09:14:33 AM  

Weaver95: doyner: somedude210: doyner: I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

to be fair, chemical weapons were never actually used 10 years ago. An entirely different situation altogether

All the more reason...

I'm just getting tired of being told I should STFU and just go along with our middle east bombing runs without asking questions.


Reasons:

First: To make a token strike in the proxy war with Iran, to show some resistance for their backing the Syrian dictatorship.  Second: Sets a precedent for intervention in the case of chemical weapon usage.  Might be needed later.  Third: token effort in the new cold war with Russia, to show some resistance for their backing the dictator.

Any one is sufficient.  Together they're decisive.  Moral authority is not on the list.
 
2013-08-29 09:16:27 AM  

Joe Blowme: Its like if the nazis were fighting the KKK, you wait till they off each other then take out the remaining

/worse attriocities are going on arround the world and yet we have done nothing, Best Korea for decades is a good example


You mean crap like this?
 
2013-08-29 09:17:05 AM  
For Christ's sake, Obama. We can't even get our shet straight at home and you want to start another pharking war? what the hell is wrong with you? bad game of horse on the Whitehouse bb court or something? Jesus, man, just let it go, and focus on fixing our healthcare, national broadband access, job creation, etc. Stop trying to copy Bush II's parental appeasement psychological issues. Be our president, not our Dennis Rodman. phark!
 
2013-08-29 09:18:21 AM  
I've said it before that there was a previous chemical weapons attack in Syria months ago. The French government claimed it was Assad's forces that committed the attack but a UN investigation pointed to the rebels. Why do they get a free pass?

That doesn't excuse the regime from using chemical weapons and while I trust Obama more than Bush I don't support any intervention without solid evidence that the regime conducted the attack. Assad was winning, why risk foreign intervention by using chemical weapons? To terrorize the enemy? Just bomb them or shoot them like they've been doing over the last few years.
 
2013-08-29 09:18:24 AM  
Let the UN handle it, Russia and china walked out.
 
2013-08-29 09:22:29 AM  

doyner: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.



Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.

I am certainly getting sick of the US killing people and wasting untold billions just to depose dictators half way around the world in countries that pose no security threat to the United States, based on evidence that turns out to be largely exaggerated or outright false.

It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.
 
2013-08-29 09:22:45 AM  

OldManDownDRoad: kronicfeld: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.

As citizens of the advanced western democracies, we face an important question - how do we profit off this war? Raytheon, GenDyn and all the usual suspects are only up slightly in their stock price. What's a boy to do?

My tip: Kratos

http://www.kratosdefense.com/

Contact your broker today. Fees may apply. Void where prohibited where law, just like the Constitution.


Wasn't someone pimping their stock in the Raytheon Tomahawk thread yesterday?  Methinks some farkers are trying to peddle penny stocks...
 
2013-08-29 09:22:53 AM  

Slaxl: doyner: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

Didn't we? I distinctly remember marches and rallies millions of people big filling up cites.

I'm amazed that the level of dissent we're hearing is nothing in comparison to what we heard 10 years ago.


I was referring to our information overlords.
 
2013-08-29 09:24:20 AM  

Phinn: Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.


I'm not so sure I'd be hanging my hat on an approval from Congress extracted on the basis of a bad faith assertion of non-existent WMDs.
 
2013-08-29 09:24:29 AM  

Weaver95: AngryDragon: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed

Which is exactly why we should stay out of it.  Let the Russians or Turks, hell ANYONE in Europe step in if this is such an imperative.

Then we get blamed for not getting involved.


Indeed. The whole situation is a loser for the US no matter what we do. The question, I guess, is how big a hit we take and where do we take it (militarily, politically, etc.)?
 
2013-08-29 09:25:00 AM  

Slaxl: doyner: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

Didn't we? I distinctly remember marches and rallies millions of people big filling up cites.

I'm amazed that the level of dissent we're hearing is nothing in comparison to what we heard 10 years ago.


THANK YOU, Slaxl! I knew I wasn't hallucinating those world-wide protests.
 
2013-08-29 09:25:06 AM  

Weaver95: AngryDragon: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed

Which is exactly why we should stay out of it.  Let the Russians or Turks, hell ANYONE in Europe step in if this is such an imperative.

Then we get blamed for not getting involved.


If the risk of American soldiers dying drops to zero and American tax payers funding the killing of people overseas disappears, I'm OK with this.
 
2013-08-29 09:26:09 AM  
media.npr.orgglasgowdoctorwho.com
 
2013-08-29 09:26:17 AM  
FTA "When you do a military strike it often has ramifications you don't anticipate"

Only if you are bad at your job.
 
2013-08-29 09:26:45 AM  
#6. Syria (gov't or rebels) launches rockets/artillery woth sarin at US aircraft carrier. Death toll up to double that of 9/11.
 
2013-08-29 09:27:05 AM  
 
2013-08-29 09:27:09 AM  

Weaver95: somedude210: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

chemical weapons actually being used. At least, that's what I assume. Maybe we're trying to make up for not helping the Kurds getting gassed back in the 90s?

Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?


exxon.com
www.chevron.com
 
2013-08-29 09:27:20 AM  

Phinn: It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.


Kosovo and Bosnia are at least, a apt parallels to what's happening now, although in those cases it was the US *protecting* the Muslim minority and not just bombing the hell out of them. We kinda knew that it wouldn't degrade into a larger regional war.
 
2013-08-29 09:28:52 AM  
*with
 
2013-08-29 09:28:53 AM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: neversubmit: Terrible table manners.

Everytime I see a picture of a prominent American in a familiar pose with some individual we later declare to be a menace, I'm reminded of those narratives of inner-city life when one kid kills a "lifelong friend" over an X-Box  or a pair of sneakers.


Okay that's sad, while I was trying to be funny. Why so serious? This is the new normal, you will be happier if you learn to live with it like Dr. Strangelove.
 
2013-08-29 09:30:10 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Phinn: It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.

Kosovo and Bosnia are at least, a apt parallels to what's happening now, although in those cases it was the US *protecting* the Muslim minority and not just bombing the hell out of them. We kinda knew that it wouldn't degrade into a larger regional war.



The Balkans?  Yeah, that area can always be counted on to keep themselves and their neighbors out of war.  A veritable haven of peace and tranquility, it is.
 
2013-08-29 09:31:59 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Phinn: It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.

Kosovo and Bosnia are at least, a apt parallels to what's happening now, although in those cases it was the US *protecting* the Muslim minority and not just bombing the hell out of them. We kinda knew that it wouldn't degrade into a larger regional war.


The only difference is the international community. The real international community. Isn't falling for that shiat anymore.

America has become predictable, and all its enemies are lying in wait where it will surely go. Will it still go there?
 
2013-08-29 09:32:03 AM  

AngryDragon: Weaver95: AngryDragon: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed

Which is exactly why we should stay out of it.  Let the Russians or Turks, hell ANYONE in Europe step in if this is such an imperative.

Then we get blamed for not getting involved.

If the risk of American soldiers dying drops to zero and American tax payers funding the killing of people overseas disappears, I'm OK with this.


It drops to zero in the short term, certainly. What's uncertain is what happens at the new equilibrium.

I'm not an isolationist, but this seems like a situation that we're best being sideline participants.
 
2013-08-29 09:32:29 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA "When you do a military strike it often has ramifications you don't anticipate"

Only if you are bad at your job.


"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" -  Helmuth von Moltke, German Field Marshall, 1800-1891
 
2013-08-29 09:33:53 AM  

Phinn: Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.


Prime Minister Cameron has recalled Parliament to hold a vote on what action to take over Syria.

Yet our President is once again ignoring the Constitution and refusing to consult Congress before attacking another nation.

This despite the fact that both Obama and Biden were very clear when they were running for office that a President does not have the power to order attacks against nations that have not attacked us first.

Obama:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation

Biden:
"The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war . . . unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,"

Yet we are just supposed to trust these lying assholes word now?  Especially so soon after they were caught red handed lying to Congress about the NSA?
 
2013-08-29 09:34:48 AM  

Phinn: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Phinn: It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.

Kosovo and Bosnia are at least, a apt parallels to what's happening now, although in those cases it was the US *protecting* the Muslim minority and not just bombing the hell out of them. We kinda knew that it wouldn't degrade into a larger regional war.

The Balkans?  Yeah, that area can always be counted on to keep themselves and their neighbors out of war.  A veritable haven of peace and tranquility, it is.


Yeah my point was that it was already a larger regional war (or at least it had been), so it was less of an unknown. Here we have the potential for unknown spillover and response from one of Syria's historical allies (Iran).
 
2013-08-29 09:34:59 AM  

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.
 
2013-08-29 09:35:24 AM  
6. Vidication of Iraq War?

"Syrian journalist and human rights activist Nizar Nayouf told the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf in 2004 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein smuggled his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons into Syria just prior to the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even the Pentagon acknowledged a credible source providing sound evidence that 50 trucks did indeed make this trek out of Iraq to Syria and that these trucks were of a company owned by Uday Hussein. That isn't even in question."
 
2013-08-29 09:35:57 AM  
FALSE FLAG.
Study it out.
 
2013-08-29 09:36:17 AM  

AngryDragon: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"


That's battle tactics. Ramifications of those tactics after the fact are something else.
 
2013-08-29 09:36:47 AM  

BullBearMS: Phinn: Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.

Prime Minister Cameron has recalled Parliament to hold a vote on what action to take over Syria.

Yet our President is once again ignoring the Constitution and refusing to consult Congress before attacking another nation.

This despite the fact that both Obama and Biden were very clear when they were running for office that a President does not have the power to order attacks against nations that have not attacked us first.

Obama:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation
Biden:
"The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war . . . unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,"
Yet we are just supposed to trust these lying assholes word now?  Especially so soon after they were caught red handed lying to Congress about the NSA?


They're Democrats though, so apparently it's OK.  A Democrat would never abuse power..
 
2013-08-29 09:36:58 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Oh don't worry: new Obama-Syria scandals are already being written in the warrens of NewsCorps main offices in the 8th Circle of Hell.
 
2013-08-29 09:37:19 AM  
Time to stock up on the dry food buckets from Sams Club.
 
2013-08-29 09:39:21 AM  

Kentucky Fried Children: OldManDownDRoad: kronicfeld: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.

As citizens of the advanced western democracies, we face an important question - how do we profit off this war? Raytheon, GenDyn and all the usual suspects are only up slightly in their stock price. What's a boy to do?

My tip: Kratos

http://www.kratosdefense.com/

Contact your broker today. Fees may apply. Void where prohibited where law, just like the Constitution.

Wasn't someone pimping their stock in the Raytheon Tomahawk thread yesterday?  Methinks some farkers are trying to peddle penny stocks...


Actually, it turned up in a web development forum yesterday as a sample of truly awful writing and canned design.

" Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: KTOS) is a

specialized National Security Technology business providing

mission critical products, services and solutions for United

States National Security priorities. Kratos' core capabilities

are sophisticated engineering, manufacturing and system

integration offerings for National Security platforms and

programs. "

All the cliches are there: "mission critical," that all-purpose word "solutions," and my least favorite phrase in the English language, "core capabilities."

Oh, yeah, and "integration." Can't forget that.

And then it got stuck in my head and I spent the rest of the afternoon walking around saying "Release the Kratos!"

/I need a vacation
 
2013-08-29 09:39:26 AM  

BullBearMS: Phinn: Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.

Prime Minister Cameron has recalled Parliament to hold a vote on what action to take over Syria.

Yet our President is once again ignoring the Constitution and refusing to consult Congress before attacking another nation.

This despite the fact that both Obama and Biden were very clear when they were running for office that a President does not have the power to order attacks against nations that have not attacked us first.

Obama:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation
Biden:
"The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war . . . unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,"
Yet we are just supposed to trust these lying assholes word now?  Especially so soon after they were caught red handed lying to Congress about the NSA?


McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess. There's enough BS on both sides to go around.
 
2013-08-29 09:39:32 AM  

jake_lex: Slaxl: I'd like to see clear unrefutable evidence that Assad was responsible. Not because I doubt the official evidence, but because I can't put up with 10 years of conspiracy theorists and false flag claims. It does my head in. I see no reason to rush this, we've waited 3 years while they shot each other, we can wait another few weeks to prove, unequivocally, that they've started killing each other slightly differently.

While I agree I want more evidence that Assad actually did order the use of chemical weapons, even "clear unrefutable evidence" wouldn't stop the "false flag" people.  I mean, how many times have the claims of 9/11 "truthers" been dismantled and they still keep it up?


My liberal buddy refused to believe that we landed on the moon for the longest time.
He has now backed off and said that we did land there, but that we did it many years later than we claimed.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:02 AM  
Nutsac_Jim: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.


Joe DimWit said that Bush had "no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."

But you have to remember that this is the Administration of Hypocrisy....it's allowed.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:07 AM  
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
-- Senator Obama

Not that it has ever stopped them.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:32 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: My liberal buddy refused to believe that we landed on the moon for the longest time.


'Liberal buddy' is the new 'black friend'.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:54 AM  
I like how not bombing people is "isolationism". As if wonton murder is the only way the US has to interact with the world.

It would be pathetic and sad if it weren't so frightening.
 
2013-08-29 09:42:22 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.


We've already had our first Unconstitutional war under Obama in Libya.

He refused to consult Congress then too.

The nice thing about being forced to seek Congressional approval before attacking another nation that hasn't attacked us, is that you have to put your evidence down on the table for everyone to see and public debate.
 
2013-08-29 09:42:39 AM  
Maybe we'll send a nuke this time and give our troops a chance to rest for a change.

/Or maybe we can just sit this one out.
 
2013-08-29 09:44:06 AM  
We should supply both sides with chemical weapons. Problem solved!
 
2013-08-29 09:44:31 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: AngryDragon: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"

That's battle tactics. Ramifications of those tactics after the fact are something else.


I read that as tactically.  Strategically...

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu, 544BC - 496BC

Rushing into a strike because we have to "DO SOMETHING" is just another disaster in the making.
 
2013-08-29 09:46:00 AM  

Ned Stark: I like how not bombing people is "isolationism". As if wonton murder is the only way the US has to interact with the world.

It would be pathetic and sad if it weren't so frightening.


img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-08-29 09:47:30 AM  

Kentucky Fried Children: OldManDownDRoad: kronicfeld: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.

As citizens of the advanced western democracies, we face an important question - how do we profit off this war? Raytheon, GenDyn and all the usual suspects are only up slightly in their stock price. What's a boy to do?

My tip: Kratos

http://www.kratosdefense.com/

Contact your broker today. Fees may apply. Void where prohibited where law, just like the Constitution.

Wasn't someone pimping their stock in the Raytheon Tomahawk thread yesterday?  Methinks some farkers are trying to peddle penny stocks...


Must've worked somehow - traded on unusually high volume yesterday.
 
2013-08-29 09:49:18 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.


Or move to impeach Obama so he can slide into the big desk
 
2013-08-29 09:49:22 AM  
Evil Mackerel: Maybe we'll send a nuke this time and give our troops a chance to rest for a change.

/Or maybe we can just sit this one out.


Where are all the Muslim countries for this.....this is their responsiblity.  I'm looking at you Bosnia, Saudi, Kosovo, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Eastern Turkestan, Chechnya, Somalia and Afghanistan.
I understand all you Muslim leaders are sitting very fat and comfortable in your golden palaces....but why wouldn't you send troops to help your fellow Muslims?


WHY?
 
2013-08-29 09:49:34 AM  

simplicimus: McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.


Are you trying to Claim the President can't call Congress out of recess just like Cameron just called Parliament out of recess?
 
2013-08-29 09:49:38 AM  
Not our business, no threat to is. No more unprovoked wars.
 
2013-08-29 09:49:56 AM  
Everyone of you sounds like a Surrender Monkey!
 
2013-08-29 09:50:39 AM  

Muta: Everyone of you sounds like a Surrender Monkey!


Ook!
 
2013-08-29 09:53:03 AM  
simplicimus:

McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.

Why would a Senator call the House out of recess?
 
2013-08-29 09:53:09 AM  

AngryDragon: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu, 544BC - 496BC

Rushing into a strike because we have to "DO SOMETHING" is just another disaster in the making.


Agreed. And to be clear, i'm sure the US knows each and every group they'd be pissing off if they attacked, and their ability to retaliate. If they try to act like they didn't expect Russia and China to do something it will smell like bullshiat to everyone, because they couldn't be more obvious. Coincidentally i notice that isn't on the list of possible repercussions, and it's by far the most dire.
 
2013-08-29 09:55:43 AM  
I'm listening to the British House of Commons debate this. Seems the logic being put forth is the fact that Syria has violated the Geneva convention, an international law that GB and the US were signers as well as some of the countries that came up with it and Syria signed it, therefore they have violated international law and should be prosecuted.

That's the logic being used now. Interesting, since I don't think I've heard anyone state that they violated international law that says "no use of chemical or biological weapons on the battlefield"
 
2013-08-29 09:57:14 AM  

karnal: why wouldn't you send troops to help your fellow Muslims?


A long, long time ago after the founder of their religion passed away there was a major disagreement about who should take control. The Muslims who thought that leadership should stay in Mohammed's family became known as the Shia. The Muslims who thought the leader should be elected became known as the Sunni.

They've been killing each other over this ever since.
 
2013-08-29 09:57:24 AM  

somedude210: I'm listening to the British House of Commons debate this. Seems the logic being put forth is the fact that Syria has violated the Geneva convention, an international law that GB and the US were signers as well as some of the countries that came up with it and Syria signed it, therefore they have violated international law and should be prosecuted.

That's the logic being used now. Interesting, since I don't think I've heard anyone state that they violated international law that says "no use of chemical or biological weapons on the battlefield"


I heard it was you that used chemical weapons in Syria, in violation of international law. If i get enough people talking about, does that make it true?
 
2013-08-29 09:59:07 AM  

Joe Blowme: 6. Vidication of Iraq War?

"Syrian journalist and human rights activist Nizar Nayouf told the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf in 2004 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein smuggled his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons into Syria just prior to the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even the Pentagon acknowledged a credible source providing sound evidence that 50 trucks did indeed make this trek out of Iraq to Syria and that these trucks were of a company owned by Uday Hussein. That isn't even in question."


Dang you. Now the libtards will blame Bush for the gas in Syria.
 
2013-08-29 10:01:49 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: heard it was you that used chemical weapons in Syria, in violation of international law. If i get enough people talking about, does that make it true?


if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?

I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games
 
2013-08-29 10:04:54 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.

Are you trying to Claim the President can't call Congress out of recess just like Cameron just called Parliament out of recess?


He doesn't have to. Here's his legal responsibility under the War Powers Act:

"In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth-
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Congress has 60 days to take action, voting yea or nay.

dentalhilljack: simplicimus:

McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.

Why would a Senator call the House out of recess?

My Bad, Boehner needs to call the House into session, McConnell the Senate.
 
2013-08-29 10:08:23 AM  

somedude210: J. Frank Parnell: heard it was you that used chemical weapons in Syria, in violation of international law. If i get enough people talking about, does that make it true?

if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?

I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games


Who here said that?
 
2013-08-29 10:11:28 AM  

somedude210: there is evidence that chemical weapons were used


Try listening to Mr. former UN inspector guy.

"But the second question ... is that of provenance. Where do they come from, and who authorized or directed they be used? And in my mind now, that now has become the crucial question in determining what action should be taken, if the global norm against any use of chemical weapons has been violated, which appears that it has. Who violated it, and who is responsible? And already we hear widespread arguments developing.

"Just a few moments before coming here, V.P. of the U.S. Joe Biden said he is completely satisfied that this was directed by the Assad government. ... I respect him, and he may well be satisfied, but I want to make this point to you. ... Him being completely satisfied is not the same as the evidence being made available to the world public.

"If it is the case that the evidence exists, (then) the U.S. and all people who are interested in this terrible problem need to have it demonstrated, not just stated, but demonstrated, that it is beyond doubt, incontrovertible that this was directed by the Syrian regime. And if that proves to be the case, then the whole issue of what action to be taken gets to be a whole lot clearer
."


Also, since Biden is claiming incontrovertible proof, let's remember what Biden's position on the Iraq war was.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to 2002, because it's important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. Here's Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: "He's a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security."

"We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world."

"He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power." You were emphatic about that.

Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued-they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream.


Why should we believe this retard again after he was so stupendously wrong the last time?
 
2013-08-29 10:13:49 AM  

somedude210: I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games


I'm hearing that Americans are overwhelmingly farking tired of being the world's policemen and sick of warfare.  I don't think we really care who the president is.  It doesn't seem to matter anymore.
 
2013-08-29 10:14:31 AM  

simplicimus: He doesn't have to.


This is an outright lie.

As both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out when running for office.

The President has no power to attack other nations except in the case that they attack us first.

Hell, Biden threatened to impeach Bushif he attacked Iran without them attacking us first.
 
2013-08-29 10:18:28 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: He doesn't have to.

This is an outright lie.

As both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out when running for office.

The President has no power to attack other nations except in the case that they attack us first.

Hell, Biden threatened to impeach Bushif he attacked Iran without them attacking us first.


If you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:05 AM  

doyner: Slaxl: doyner: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

Didn't we? I distinctly remember marches and rallies millions of people big filling up cites.

I'm amazed that the level of dissent we're hearing is nothing in comparison to what we heard 10 years ago.

I was referring to our information overlords.


Ah, you may be right there then, I don't know.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:09 AM  

somedude210: if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?


My sources indicate it was you that ordered their use. Although i cannot reveal these sources for security reasons. I'm sure you understand.

But seriously, i'd suggest the entire purpose of 'international law' is to give casus belli for invasions. Why else would they ignore the majority of violations and only concern themselves with ones alleged to have happened in countries they want to attack? And chemical weapons are probably banned because simply they kill too many people too cheaply, and the military industrial complex doesn't like that. They have many equally horrible ways to kill people which are perfectly legal, so it can't realistically be an ethics thing.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:12 AM  

Ned Stark: I like how not bombing people is "isolationism". As if wonton murder is the only way the US has to interact with the world.

It would be pathetic and sad if it weren't so frightening.


Dude I murdered some wontons last night. F*cking love those crunchy little bastards.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:16 AM  

simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.


So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?
 
2013-08-29 10:23:37 AM  
When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.
 
2013-08-29 10:25:02 AM  
*sigh*

It's times like these that I find myself missing the nazis.
 
2013-08-29 10:25:22 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.

So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?


The president does not have the power to declare war. That's the law. The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.
 
2013-08-29 10:29:20 AM  

phenn: When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.


Who exactly is pining for war that is a Farklibulartardo? The way I see it, the only good thing to come from the rabid hate of Obama from the right is that maybe now with a coalition of peace-niks and Obamaphobes we may actually have the traction to put the brakes on this insane venture.
 
2013-08-29 10:30:04 AM  

simplicimus: The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.


Since there is no historical precedent of Congress ever stopping the initiation of hostilities after 60 days, that threat is a paper tiger.  No Congressman is going to risk appearing to not "support the troops".  The President authorizing military action of any scale is therefore a de facto declaration of war.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be repealed.
 
2013-08-29 10:31:02 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: And chemical weapons are probably banned because simply they kill too many people too cheaply, and the military industrial complex doesn't like that. They have many equally horrible ways to kill people which are perfectly legal, so it can't realistically be an ethics thing.


Actually, chemical weapons are entirely inefficient in killing ability (at least in a battlefield sense). They were banned after WW1 because the public found them to be horrific weapons, much like nukes haven't been used since WW2 because of the horrific nature of it.
 
2013-08-29 10:32:43 AM  

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.

So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?

The president does not have the power to declare war. That's the law. The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.


You're a liar.

I notice you left out the part of the War Power Act that says this:

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Funny how you could miss the sentence right before the section you quoted.

Obama is violating the War Powers Act by deciding on his own to attack another nation that has not attacked us without consulting with Congress.
 
2013-08-29 10:33:08 AM  
How about instead of bombing and killing more people... wait, stay with me here... We make a big deal about sending aid to those displaced children?  I know it's a crazy idea...
 
2013-08-29 10:33:12 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Who exactly is pining for war that is a Farklibulartardo? The way I see it, the only good thing to come from the rabid hate of Obama from the right is that maybe now with a coalition of peace-niks and Obamaphobes we may actually have the traction to put the brakes on this insane venture.


I sure do hope you're right.
 
2013-08-29 10:35:34 AM  

AngryDragon: somedude210: I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games

I'm hearing that Americans are overwhelmingly farking tired of being the world's policemen and sick of warfare.  I don't think we really care who the president is.  It doesn't seem to matter anymore.


As long as people can be made to feel defensive when called an "isolationist", nothing will change.
This "cop and nanny to the world" bullshiat has been our foreign policy since WWII - nobody in either of the major parties has the slightest intention of changing it.
 
2013-08-29 10:35:40 AM  

D135: How about instead of bombing and killing more people... wait, stay with me here... We make a big deal about sending aid to those displaced children?  I know it's a crazy idea...


But that would put us firmly on moral ground. Can't have that, it sends mixed messages.
 
2013-08-29 10:37:10 AM  

somedude210: Actually, chemical weapons are entirely inefficient in killing ability (at least in a battlefield sense). They were banned after WW1 because the public found them to be horrific weapons, much like nukes haven't been used since WW2 because of the horrific nature of it.


Maybe mustard gas or something, if the enemy has masks, but VX and others are about as efficient as you can get.

And have you perhaps seen the horrifying birth defects caused by depleted uranium, not to mention all the cancer? The public is universally horrified with that, yet it persists. Maybe if brown people countries start using those shells it will be deemed illegal, then a year later they'll get invaded.
 
2013-08-29 10:38:17 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: somedude210: if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?

My sources indicate it was you that ordered their use. Although i cannot reveal these sources for security reasons. I'm sure you understand.

But seriously, i'd suggest the entire purpose of 'international law' is to give casus belli for invasions. Why else would they ignore the majority of violations and only concern themselves with ones alleged to have happened in countries they want to attack? And chemical weapons are probably banned because simply they kill too many people too cheaply, and the military industrial complex doesn't like that. They have many equally horrible ways to kill people which are perfectly legal, so it can't realistically be an ethics thing.


This - you can't have people running around killing thousands for pennies. It's unprofitable , and hence, un-American.
 
2013-08-29 10:38:53 AM  

phenn: When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.


I'm pretty much against a war, or even limited strikes without further information, and I was against the Iraq war, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Firstly calls for Bushes impeachment really hinged around the fact his lies were exposed. The justifications for war his government fabricated are known as lies. That is worthy of a call to impeach. Obama hasn't done anything yet. Someone demanding he be impeached for invading Syria is a mentalist.

Secondly there does lie an issue with justification. Bush had none. If this can be proved to be a chemical attack on civilians carried out by Assad's regime, then there does exist a clear casus belli under international and humanitarian law. (As far as my limited understanding goes, based on the fact that NATO in Bosnia set a legal precedent)

That is an if, and I don't support action because I want some cast iron, 100% proof before I agree to anything.

Fortunately for us all I am the one in charge of the world, because governments have people read Fark just to hear my thoughts and opinions on what to do. I assume they do, anyway.
 
2013-08-29 10:39:33 AM  

AngryDragon: simplicimus: The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.

Since there is no historical precedent of Congress ever stopping the initiation of hostilities after 60 days, that threat is a paper tiger.  No Congressman is going to risk appearing to not "support the troops".  The President authorizing military action of any scale is therefore a de facto declaration of war.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be repealed.


IIRC, the last declared war was WWII.
 
2013-08-29 10:41:17 AM  

Slaxl: Firstly calls for Bushes impeachment really hinged around the fact his lies were exposed. The justifications for war his government fabricated are known as lies. That is worthy of a call to impeach. Obama hasn't done anything yet. Someone demanding he be impeached for invading Syria is a mentalist.


The US has been gunning for Syria for 20 years.
 
2013-08-29 10:43:38 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: f you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.

So Obama and Biden were both lying when they said a President does not have that power?

The president does not have the power to declare war. That's the law. The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.

You're a liar.

I notice you left out the part of the War Power Act that says this:

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Funny how you could miss the sentence right before the section you quoted.

Obama is violating the War Powers Act by deciding on his own to attack another nation that has not attacked us without consulting with Congress.


So, the section you quoted contradicts the section I quoted. They're both in the same Act.
 
2013-08-29 10:44:08 AM  

phenn: When Bushco was doing the same thing, Farkers were bristling with calls for his impeachment. Now that Obama is doing it, Farkers are wrangling for ways to justify it.

You people are utterly disgraceful. Utterly.

While you play politics for people who do not give a flying fark about you, people in Syria (women and children included) are facing death.

You should all be farking ashamed of yourselves. Anyone supporting action against Syria is a farking terrorist. Go to hell.



It's an entertaining test -- to see if the Proggies love Obama more than they hate Bush.

It's even more entertaining when you consider the possibility that the chemical weapons that Obama is illegally attacking may be the same stockpile of weapons that Iraq moved to Syria just before the Iraq war in 2003 (as top Iraqi military officials later asserted).

3.bp.blogspot.com

This military campaign by the Proggies' man-crush Obama could, in a single move, both vindicate the Bush administration on the "fabricated WMDs" narrative, AND reveal Obama to be MORE willing to launch an unpopular war than Bush, on account of his failure to even seek the approval of Congress.
 
2013-08-29 10:46:51 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Maybe mustard gas or something, if the enemy has masks, but VX and others are about as efficient as you can get.


well the law was written in 1925, so the advancement of chemical/biological warfare did not get to such levels yet. and chlorine gas was far more potent a weapon than any other gas developed during the war. That said, yes, the law needs to be tweaked.

J. Frank Parnell: And have you perhaps seen the horrifying birth defects caused by depleted uranium, not to mention all the cancer? The public is universally horrified with that, yet it persists. Maybe if brown people countries start using those shells it will be deemed illegal, then a year later they'll get invaded.


I am not at all endorsing this potential conflict or the use of weapons such as these.

and aren't depleted uranium shells frowned upon? Much like white phosphorous usage?
 
2013-08-29 10:47:01 AM  

Slaxl: Secondly there does lie an issue with justification. Bush had none


Congress passed the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq.

In contrast, Obama refuses to even consult with Congress.
 
2013-08-29 10:47:25 AM  

simplicimus: AngryDragon: simplicimus: The president can initiate hostilities which are not declared wars and Congress has 60 days to tell him to stop.

Since there is no historical precedent of Congress ever stopping the initiation of hostilities after 60 days, that threat is a paper tiger.  No Congressman is going to risk appearing to not "support the troops".  The President authorizing military action of any scale is therefore a de facto declaration of war.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be repealed.

IIRC, the last declared war was WWII.


Precisely.  The WPR of '73 was passed to legitimize Korea and Vietnam and has been used in Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya (twice), Kosovo, and Bosnia since.
 
2013-08-29 10:49:52 AM  

Phinn: This military campaign by the Proggies' man-crush Obama could, in a single move, both vindicate the Bush administration on the "fabricated WMDs" narrative, AND reveal Obama to be MORE willing to launch an unpopular war than Bush, on account of his failure to even seek the approval of Congress.


I have to ask this because there is a lot of war talk going on.

There hasn't been a single mention of the West (US, GB, NATO, etc) putting boots on the ground at all, correct? So this is going to be at worse, Libya or Kosovo?

Making comparisons that this is the same as Operation Daddy Issues is intellectually disingenuous.
 
2013-08-29 10:49:55 AM  

phenn: Slaxl: Firstly calls for Bushes impeachment really hinged around the fact his lies were exposed. The justifications for war his government fabricated are known as lies. That is worthy of a call to impeach. Obama hasn't done anything yet. Someone demanding he be impeached for invading Syria is a mentalist.

The US has been gunning for Syria for 20 years.


I would have thought longer, but does that on it's own really change anything? If the matter is whether a chemical weapon attack on populations is punishable by international intervention then does the fact that they're someone we've been jonesing for a fight with really matter? Only if you consider the possibility that the chemical weapon attack didn't happen, or was done by the US or something crazy like that.

Like I said, I don't want a war, but I don't think that someone anti-Iraq and pro-Syrian war are necessarily hypocritical (though perhaps it will be easy to find a few uninformed partisan hacks who are as you describe).
 
2013-08-29 10:53:13 AM  
newyork.citypudding.com

"Three, sir!"
 
2013-08-29 10:56:12 AM  

BullBearMS: Slaxl: Secondly there does lie an issue with justification. Bush had none

Congress passed the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq.

In contrast, Obama refuses to even consult with Congress.


A) Congress is not in session to consult with
B) If the president gets the paperwork McConnell and Boehner within 48 hours, he's in the clear
 
2013-08-29 10:57:51 AM  

simplicimus: So, the section you quoted contradicts the section I quoted. They're both in the same Act.


Yes, liar.

However the section you quoted deals with what what the President must report to Congress in the event of military action, and doesn't have a damn thing to do with him consulting with Congress before sending our military into combat.

Consulting with Congress is an absolute requirement if it is at all possible.

That's why the section you quoted is titled "Reporting" and not "Consultation".

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
Nice attempt to lie about the contents of the War Powers Resolution, though.
 
2013-08-29 10:59:15 AM  

Slaxl: Like I said, I don't want a war, but I don't think that someone anti-Iraq and pro-Syrian war are necessarily hypocritical (though perhaps it will be easy to find a few uninformed partisan hacks who are as you describe).


This is not a US problem.  That's what people are upset about.  There are 193 members of the UN, 28 members of NATO, and 15 members of the Security Council.  Let someone else take the lead this time.  Syria has a lot of neighbors in those groups whose interests are a hell of a lot closer to Syria than ours.
 
2013-08-29 11:00:39 AM  

simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with


Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.
 
2013-08-29 11:02:48 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with

Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.


Um, we're not the UK.
 
2013-08-29 11:04:22 AM  

simplicimus: B) If the president gets the paperwork McConnell and Boehner within 48 hours, he's in the clear


If the President attacks another nations without consulting with Congress first, he is in violation of the War Powers Act as both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out.

Why continue to lie about it?
 
2013-08-29 11:05:30 AM  

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with

Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.

Um, we're not the UK.


The President can't call Congress into session?
 
2013-08-29 11:13:47 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with

Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.

Um, we're not the UK.

The President can't call Congress into session?


Honestly, I have no idea. Would need to research. State Governors have that power.

BullBearMS: simplicimus: B) If the president gets the paperwork McConnell and Boehner within 48 hours, he's in the clear

If the President attacks another nations without consulting with Congress first, he is in violation of the War Powers Act as both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out.

Why continue to lie about it?


OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?
 
2013-08-29 11:16:26 AM  

karnal: Evil Mackerel: Maybe we'll send a nuke this time and give our troops a chance to rest for a change.

/Or maybe we can just sit this one out.

Where are all the Muslim countries for this.....this is their responsiblity.  I'm looking at you Bosnia, Saudi, Kosovo, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Eastern Turkestan, Chechnya, Somalia and Afghanistan.
I understand all you Muslim leaders are sitting very fat and comfortable in your golden palaces....but why wouldn't you send troops to help your fellow Muslims?


WHY?


/Swims past the hook.
 
2013-08-29 11:19:29 AM  

simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?


Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.
 
2013-08-29 11:19:45 AM  
If Dick Cheney was running the show, it would be a win-win situation, with just rosy outcomes all around.
 
2013-08-29 11:20:12 AM  

Slaxl: Like I said, I don't want a war


No one should - not under ANY president.

War is the folly of bankers who hedge their bets by funding both sides of the conflict. The people in the middle - the men, women and children - who are innocent and who lose life and limb are nothing more than collateral damage to the greedy farks perpetrating the destruction.

Can you think of any evil worse than war? I can't.

My original point is that Americans should be JUST as disgusted and outraged with this as they once were about Iraq. But, neighbor, I ain't hearing much.

There is simply no justification for any of this.
 
2013-08-29 11:23:39 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?

Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.


Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?
 
2013-08-29 11:26:06 AM  

AngryDragon: BullBearMS: simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?

Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.

Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?


Why is following the Constitution a victory in a nation supposedly ruled by law?

Seriously?
 
2013-08-29 11:27:56 AM  

phenn: There is simply no justification for any of this


What are you?  Some kind of racist?
 
2013-08-29 11:28:30 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: OK, you are technically correct about something that hasn't been relevant since 1942. Good enough?

Libya was way past 1942 and Obama refused to act within the bounds of the law there too.

The War Powers Resolution was a massive victory for Democrats. They passed it over an outright veto by Nixon.

Now we're going to throw it away because Obama?

Fark that.


Libya was part of the Nato Compact. Which leads to this lump of gobbledygook:
(a)  Inferences from any law or treatyAuthority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.(b)  Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commandsNothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
 
2013-08-29 11:29:36 AM  
6)  Top US General's Read "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler and realize they are no longer protecting America and are protecting Oil/Gas Cartels and Usury banking.  So instead of attacking Syria on the basis of lies and propaganda they use facts and evidence by following the money to attack the traitors and criminals within the US government.  Everyone connected with PNAC and AIPAC are arrested and pressured to give up information on their superiors(without the use of torture but lesser sentences if not immunity).  The Federal Reserve Bank's Charter is to be revoked as congress is disbanded and new "fair" elections to take place that eliminate the 2 party system of dominance giving equal time and money to any canidate that accumulates enough of popular support from individuals not groups what ever that number is.  An updated version of the Constitution is created and signed by Any member State or Nation, Now called the United States of Earth. The Central Banking scheme is permanently banned.  Prosperity, justice, and the rule of law return to the US and expanded to the rest of the world through open communication and compromise rather than by force of arms and bullying.
 
2013-08-29 11:31:23 AM  

BullBearMS: Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?

Why is following the Constitution a victory in a nation supposedly ruled by law?

Seriously?


We're missing each other here somehow.  The War Powers Resolution is not a part of the Constitution.  The enumerated powers of the branches of government are.  The Senate ONLY can declare or authorize war.  In my opinion if the WPR is going to be the way going forward it should be amended to remove the 60-day grace.
 
2013-08-29 11:33:15 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: AngryDragon: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu, 544BC - 496BC

Rushing into a strike because we have to "DO SOMETHING" is just another disaster in the making.

Agreed. And to be clear, i'm sure the US knows each and every group they'd be pissing off if they attacked, and their ability to retaliate. If they try to act like they didn't expect Russia and China to do something it will smell like bullshiat to everyone, because they couldn't be more obvious. Coincidentally i notice that isn't on the list of possible repercussions, and it's by far the most dire.


I disagree with US military involvement. However, I'm not sure what you think Russia and China are going to do. China has no ability to stop us in the region, and Russia won't directly attack or disrupt US military action.
 
2013-08-29 11:33:58 AM  
My fav article title so far was at CNN

"What a US air strike against Syria may look like."   OMG, we KNOW what US air strikes look like.  We know less about Paris Hilton's tits than we do about what US air strikes.
 
2013-08-29 11:41:31 AM  

simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.


Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Libya didn't attack America. Libya didn't attack any NATO nation.

You know what Libya did do?

Thanks to State Department cables leaked by Manning, we know that Libya was threatening to kick western oil firms out of Libya and keep their oil wells right before we decided to depose him.

So yet another oil nation where we deposed a leader who threatened us.

Obama's illegal war was about oil company profits, and nothing else.
 
2013-08-29 11:41:54 AM  

prjindigo: My fav article title so far was at CNN

"What a US air strike against Syria may look like."   OMG, we KNOW what US air strikes look like.  We know less about Paris Hilton's tits than we do about what US air strikes.


Where have you been?  They're actually fairly nice.
 
2013-08-29 11:45:19 AM  
I'm hypothetically angry about these hypothetical outrages.
 
2013-08-29 11:50:39 AM  

AngryDragon: BullBearMS: Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?

Why is following the Constitution a victory in a nation supposedly ruled by law?

Seriously?

We're missing each other here somehow.  The War Powers Resolution is not a part of the Constitution.  The enumerated powers of the branches of government are.  The Senate ONLY can declare or authorize war.  In my opinion if the WPR is going to be the way going forward it should be amended to remove the 60-day grace.


Ahhh... I get your drift now.

Remember that the 60 days only applies if another nation attacks us first.

With modern communications, however, allowing the President to retaliate for 60 days without Congressional approval does seem excessive.
 
2013-08-29 11:51:42 AM  
If the military would just scratch out the "Made In America" on the bombs and painted "Property Of UN" instead, we might be cool.
 
2013-08-29 11:54:35 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?


Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.
 
2013-08-29 11:58:22 AM  

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.


I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
 
2013-08-29 11:59:36 AM  

BullBearMS: AngryDragon: BullBearMS: Why?  Why is weakening the controls for engaging the US in military conflict a victory for anyone but the party in power and the military-industrial complex?

Why is following the Constitution a victory in a nation supposedly ruled by law?

Seriously?

We're missing each other here somehow.  The War Powers Resolution is not a part of the Constitution.  The enumerated powers of the branches of government are.  The Senate ONLY can declare or authorize war.  In my opinion if the WPR is going to be the way going forward it should be amended to remove the 60-day grace.

Ahhh... I get your drift now.

Remember that the 60 days only applies if another nation attacks us first.

With modern communications, however, allowing the President to retaliate for 60 days without Congressional approval does seem excessive.


Nope.  (b)Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commands
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
 
2013-08-29 12:02:26 PM  

AngryDragon: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.

I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.


Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?
 
2013-08-29 12:02:52 PM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Libya didn't attack America. Libya didn't attack any NATO nation.

You know what Libya did do?

Thanks to State Department cables leaked by Manning, we know that Libya was threatening to kick western oil firms out of Libya and keep their oil wells right before we decided to depose him.

So yet another oil nation where we deposed a leader who threatened us.

Obama's illegal war was about oil company profits, and nothing else.


That may be what the war was about, but it was a NATO operation, not Obama'a war..
On 19 March, nineteen French Air Force aircraft entered Libyan airspace to begin reconnaissance missions, and flew over Benghazi to prevent any attacks on the rebel-controlled city.[44] Italian Air Force planes reportedly also began surveillance operations over Libya. In the evening, a French jet destroyed a government vehicle. Shortly afterward, a French airstrike destroyed four tanks southwest of Benghazi.[45] US and British ships and submarines fired at least 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles at twenty Libyan integrated air and ground defense systems.[46] Three US B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew non-stop from the US to drop forty bombs on a major Libyan airfield, while other US aircraft searched for Libyan ground forces to attack.[47][48] Twenty-five coalition naval vessels, including three US submarines, began operating in the area.[49] NATO ships and aircraft began enforcing a blockade of Libya, patrolling the approaches to Libyan territorial waters.
 
2013-08-29 12:05:38 PM  

Slaxl: AngryDragon: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.

I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?


Well, we wouldn't be pirates if we had Letters of Marque.
 
2013-08-29 12:12:27 PM  

Slaxl: Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?


Sounds like someone's been playing Sid Meier's Pirates! again.

/I cannot fault you for such a thing
//+$5
 
2013-08-29 12:12:30 PM  

simplicimus: That may be what the war was about, but it was a NATO operation, not Obama'a war


Where exactly in the War Powers Act is this exception that says that the President doesn't need to consult with Congress if at all possible before sending our military into action, because NATO?

NATO predates the War Powers Act, so it must be in there somewhere, right?

You're getting more and more idiotic.

The United States was not attacked by Libya.

No NATO nation was attacked by Libya.

You know who was threatened by Libya? BP.
 
rka
2013-08-29 12:20:56 PM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: A) Congress is not in session to consult with

Parliament wasn't in session either, Yet the Prime Minister somehow managed to call them into session.

Um, we're not the UK.

The President can't call Congress into session?


The Prime MINISTER is a member of Parliament.

The President of the United States is not a member of Congress. On what basis or authority could he call them back into session? The US President is not King of the Country.
 
2013-08-29 12:21:39 PM  

simplicimus: Slaxl: AngryDragon: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.

I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?

Well, we wouldn't be pirates if we had Letters of Marque.


We can do it without the Letter of Marque and be truly piratical if you prefer.
 
2013-08-29 12:22:05 PM  

rka: The US President is not King of the Country.


img180.imageshack.us

Frowns
 
2013-08-29 12:28:30 PM  

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


Look, an unused weapon is a useless weapon.  Didn' t you ever see Spies Like Us?

Real pro/con reasons:

Pros
1.  Obama threatened action if they used chemical weapons
2.  Use of CWs is a big farking deal and should have consequences
3.  Syria is a mess that needs some help...something....somehow.
4.  No one else has the balls or ability to do this as cleanly as we do.

Cons
1.  Not our fight.  The powers that be hate us being policemen unless they love us for being policemen.
2.  No UN backing (and there won't be.)  Even Ban is saying stuff like, "well, its just a little pepper spray".
3.  It will have consequences on the entire region...so will doing nothing though.
4.  Whoever wins, the world loses.  Assad was somewhat stable and Westernized.  Al qaida is...not.  Yet, al Quaida is slightly ahead of Assad in being the good guy here.

That pretty much is it summed up.  We don't have any strategic interests there.  We would be doing it for purely humanitarian reasons...or for other countries with interests there.  Or we'd do it do cover up our arms dealing with the rebels, and possibly the use of our chemical weapons we sold to Iraq.  But it doesn't really bear on US interests.

That said, its the right thing to do...stopping the use of CWs.  But its not easy to do.  And will costs lives.
 
2013-08-29 12:32:20 PM  

simplicimus: Slaxl: AngryDragon: simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Libya was part of the Nato Compact.

Are you just seriously going to dig up more bullshiat?

Ahh, Why not?
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
At that time (the signing of the Constitution), declaring war meant sending letters to the other countries informing them that we were at war, and outlining the rules of conflict.

I, for one, would like to see us issuing more Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Can we do a kickstarter to raise money for a ship, get ourself a letter of marque (letter of farque?) and go sailing the seas, boarding Spanish galleons?

Well, we wouldn't be pirates if we had Letters of Marque.


The proper term would be Privateers.  Sounds more capitalisty and swashbuckly.
 
2013-08-29 12:34:15 PM  
BullBearMS: simplicimus: That may be what the war was about, but it was a NATO operation, not Obama'a war

Where exactly in the War Powers Act is this exception that says that the President doesn't need to consult with Congress if at all possible before sending our military into action, because NATO?


Same part as last time:
 (b)Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commands
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

NATO predates the War Powers Act, so it must be in there somewhere, right?
Yep, NATO was formed before Nov. 7, 1973.

You're getting more and more idiotic.

The United States was not attacked by Libya.

No NATO nation was attacked by Libya.

You know who was threatened by Libya? BP.
 
2013-08-29 12:35:28 PM  

I_C_Weener: That said, its the right thing to do...stopping the use of CWs.  But its not easy to do.  And will costs lives


They've already been used.  This won't stop anything.  It's retaliation plain and simple.  Whoever used them knew that military reprisal was a risk.  The only things that will be harmed by this will be the bomb catchers and the reputation of the US (either way)
 
2013-08-29 12:37:23 PM  

AngryDragon: I_C_Weener: That said, its the right thing to do...stopping the use of CWs.  But its not easy to do.  And will costs lives

They've already been used.  This won't stop anything.  It's retaliation plain and simple.  Whoever used them knew that military reprisal was a risk.  The only things that will be harmed by this will be the bomb catchers and the reputation of the US (either way)


Well, I think we can agree it won't stop last week.  It would stop next week.  Sheesh.  You forgot to comment on my grammar too.
 
2013-08-29 12:43:36 PM  

I_C_Weener: AngryDragon: I_C_Weener: That said, its the right thing to do...stopping the use of CWs.  But its not easy to do.  And will costs lives

They've already been used.  This won't stop anything.  It's retaliation plain and simple.  Whoever used them knew that military reprisal was a risk.  The only things that will be harmed by this will be the bomb catchers and the reputation of the US (either way)

Well, I think we can agree it won't stop last week.  It would stop next week.  Sheesh.  You forgot to comment on my grammar too.


But it won't is my point.  They knew there could be strikes if they did it, whoever they is.  Actual strikes aren't going to make them say "huh, I guess they were really serious.  We better not use them again"  It's not like the US doesn't have a track record of dropping overwhelming disproportional ordinance when it decides to strike back.

No, the response will be "Allahu Akbar!  Death to the infidels!".  Only this time, who do you think they will be talking about?  Nothing good can come from this.
 
2013-08-29 12:44:06 PM  

Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: somedude210: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

moral authority?

The British Legal letters state 'war crimes', 'crimes against humanity' and genocide.

Yeah but we let bush and Cheny get away with bombing the middle east on little or no evidence.


Yes, and it proved to be such a clear and recent lesson, that it should be exactly what our Congresscritters should use to reinforce their backbones and stop it this time.
 
2013-08-29 12:46:52 PM  

splashing slashie: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: somedude210: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

moral authority?

The British Legal letters state 'war crimes', 'crimes against humanity' and genocide.

Yeah but we let bush and Cheny get away with bombing the middle east on little or no evidence.

Yes, and it proved to be such a clear and recent lesson, that it should be exactly what our Congresscritters should use to reinforce their backbones and stop it this time.


That's a bingo.
 
2013-08-29 01:04:32 PM  
BullBearMS:

If it makes you feel better, Obama unilaterally attacking Syria would actually be Obama's war.
 
2013-08-29 01:33:56 PM  

OldManDownDRoad: Kentucky Fried Children: OldManDownDRoad: kronicfeld: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.

As citizens of the advanced western democracies, we face an important question - how do we profit off this war? Raytheon, GenDyn and all the usual suspects are only up slightly in their stock price. What's a boy to do?

My tip: Kratos

http://www.kratosdefense.com/

Contact your broker today. Fees may apply. Void where prohibited where law, just like the Constitution.

Wasn't someone pimping their stock in the Raytheon Tomahawk thread yesterday?  Methinks some farkers are trying to peddle penny stocks...

Actually, it turned up in a web development forum yesterday as a sample of truly awful writing and canned design.

" Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: KTOS) is a

specialized National Security Technology business providing

mission critical products, services and solutions for United

States National Security priorities. Kratos' core capabilities

are sophisticated engineering, manufacturing and system

integration offerings for National Security platforms and

programs. "

All the cliches are there: "mission critical," that all-purpose word "solutions," and my least favorite phrase in the English language, "core capabilities."

Oh, yeah, and "integration." Can't forget that.

And then it got stuck in my head and I spent the rest of the afternoon walking around saying "Release the Kratos!"

/I need a vacation


Ok, here he is:

xbigygames.com
 
2013-08-29 02:00:43 PM  
 
2013-08-29 02:41:51 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: Looks like this thing is going to happen...


That's my old ship!  Good times...
 
2013-08-29 02:51:07 PM  
Screw Syria, and screw the Middle East.  Let them kill each other.  Can we please focus on domestic issues instead of back water civilizations?
 
2013-08-29 04:34:11 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: Looks like this thing is going to happen...


Oh it certainly is. Akrotiri AFB in Cyprus is currently being filled up with B2s and stealth drones. UN is pulling people out on Saturday, earlier than they planned. It's coming real soon.
 
2013-08-29 06:50:53 PM  
 
2013-08-29 07:55:13 PM  
Pfft. What's to worry? Everybody wants the evidence to be inconclusive, so odds are it will be. No one who matters is really willing to move on inconclusive evidence after Iraq. Even if there is a smoking gun, a couple of tomahawks on suspected chemical sites and we'll leave it at that. Russia and Iran aren't going to risk escalating this if that's all there will be. As for retaliation against Israel, it'll be news when Iran and it's proxies STOP trying to destroy Israel.
 
Displayed 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report